The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1887-09-15

yune Tern, a. =. 1857.
Martin a. Sullivan ct a., - ExecatsrS Appel
hnts. W John Lear, Appeliee-Escamoia
county.
RAxxY, j.:
/. When m article has no market value its
value may be shown BY proef Of facts affecting
the question, and naturally calculated to aid the
| Jury in reaching Q correct conclusion The
| price at which similar thing may have sold in
| the same neighberhood, and the opinion Of per-
sons properly informed 10 to the value oil Things
Of the same kind may be proven.
g. A franchise or bare right to do thing is OF
| no value when considered exclusively of its
utility. It's value ID dependent upon the practi-
cal use to which it can be put, or the proht
which by proper management can be made out
| oft.
8. When n franchise is Of such q character 40
| to render both an expenditure of money and the
| application of business judgment and skill in its
management necessary to make it useful and
| profitable, its value must be determined BY
consideration of it in connection with such pos
| sibiliies.
| 4 When the opinion of q witness as to the
value of franchise granted by city to build
| and operate q wharf, is based upon his own ex-
| perience In the construction and successful ope-
| ration of q wharf under q similar franchise,
such opinion is not made inadmissible as ev-
|
| what is the value Of the former franchise in
| itself and without reference to the improvement
| OF which II Is capable.
| 5. An opinion OF the value of such franchise,
which is based upon the assumption of the
| pro6t which could be derived from the operation
| of Q wharf TO be constructed under ii, is not
| made inadmissbe as evidence by the fact that
| such witness cannot state the value of it when
considered without reference to the ability of the
person owning it to build a wharf and make
| business for il
6. Where q city has granted franchise to
pereon at a certain price and the grant is assign
able by such persen, the consideration charged
by the city for the franchise Is not conclusive
upon the question Of its value in an action be-
tween the original grantee and his vendee grow
ing out Of . subsequent sale OF such franchise
!. Where deed of conveyance or assignment
acknowledges the receipt of q valuable consid-
GRAFTON without specifying what it is. parol testi
mOny is admissible TO prove the character Of the
| consideration.
8. Where a deed conveys or assigns property
for value received" such recital is not incon-
sstent with. nor does it exclude, parol proof
| that the consideration for which the deed was
made, was executory in its character.
8. The acknowledgement in a deed assigning
franchise 10 build and operate a wharf was for
value received" of the vendee, and there was
no evidence as to what the consideration was
except the testimony of one witness TO the effect
| that when the deed was delivered by the vendor
TO the vendee the latter said "all right will
give you the loading Of one third of all my ships
! as long as my firm lasts" The vendor q
stevedore, and the vendee a consgnee of vessels:
Held, That the jury were justified in regarding
| the premise as the consideration for the deed,
and aot as a mere gratuitous declaration.
Affirmed.
r. L. Campbell, for Appellants; w. A. Blount,
for Appellee.
Annie Wilngham ct al. Appellants, vs.. Zibs
King ct al, Appellecs-Polk county.
maxwell, c. j.:
l. A person imprisoned in the peniientlary for
| life is not civlly dead, and may sue in his own
name, and il is improper TO join another as pro-
chem ami party complainant
| Q. Such person cannot maintain a suit in
equity against his wife and another 10 whom
she has sold his property for the purpose of
adjusting the respective rights of the three,
on an allegation in his bill that the sale is
void, and an admission that she has An interest
in the property which should be determined
| the wife having no interest in his property which
can become the subject Of suit betw cen them un-
der such circumstances. He has remedy at law
against the purchaser, II the sale was void.
3. While irremediable injury is a ground Of
| equity Jurisdiction general allegation of such
injury, not stating facts on which the allegation
is based, nor showing how or why the damages
will be irremediable, is not sufficient.
Affirmed.
g. A. Hanson, for Appellants; Sparkman &
Sparkman, Wall & Turmsn, for Appellees.
c. 81. Jones & Bro, Appellants, vs. Samuel W.
Eek, Assignee, Appellees-Upon petition for
rehearfng.
| MAXWELL, c. j.:
A petition purporting to be petition for re-
hearing, but which Is in substance reargument
Of the case, will not be considered by this court
or be made part of the record in the case
A w. COckrell & Son, for Petitioners.
V. Sanchez, Administrator, Appellant, vs. Thos.
Dow ct al, Appellees-St. Johns county.
MAXWELL, c. j.:
l. Equity will bar demands become stale by
| lapse of time, even though q trust be involved,
| If time and long acquiescence have obscured the
acts of the parties, or other circumstances have
given rise 10 presumptions unfavorable to its con-
| tinuance.
Q. j. F., executors of P and L. and T.
F., collected money for their estates in 1908, and
acknowledged his Indebtedness up to his death
! 10 1923. conditioned upon the result of q claim
| of third party against the estates. In 1880
court in Louisiana decided adversely to the
| claim. From that time till the bringing of
| this suit In 1875, except in 1886, no steps
| were taken to enforce the debt, and no ex.
cuse given fer the delay except non-resi-
| dence OF complainants and their ignorance
| OF the claim. The ancestors through whom
complainants derive, or some OF them knew
of the claim and took action in regard to
| 1t: Held, That under such circumstances the
claim is a stale one and barred by lapse of time
Decree is reversed and the bill dismissed
Fleming d Daniel for Appellant; VIM. Nc
Cabe John A. Henderson for ApDeliees